Science vs. Evolution

[tanzanos]

I base my evidence on the facts.



Transitional fossils aren't in existance, this is not something creationists make up, but what museum officials themselves agree with.

For your information: ALL fossils are transitional. All life evolves. As for your facts? Well you have given us none. Your make up as you go along attitude cannot and will not be taken seriously.

What are your facts and evidences? You have none!

Now how about you explain to us what happened to the dinosaurs?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

For your information: ALL fossils are transitional. All life evolves. As for your facts? Well you have given us none. Your make up as you go along attitude cannot and will not be taken seriously.

What are your facts and evidences? You have none!

Now how about you explain to us what happened to the dinosaurs?

I can. See the attachement

 

[lucaspa]

I base my evidence on the facts.

You count the false witness of an out-of-context quote from Colin Patterson as "fact"?

Transitional fossils aren't in existance,

I posted a partial list of transitional individuals linking species to species to new genera, family, order, and even class. Here it is again:
Transitional fossils - Christian Forums

And how long has this thread run on for now? And yet you evolutionists have failed time and time again to provide any evidence for evolution.

That's not quite the case. Instead, creationists have refused to accept the evidence. That does not say anything about the state of the evidence, but rather about the mental state of creationists.

Here's more evidence for evolution, observed speciation:
http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

I can also include phylogenetic analysis:

DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed. This includes sequences from thousands of species now across all phyla.

"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."

Look at that quote carefully. If creationism is correct, then there are separately created "kinds". Either single species (like H. sapiens) or groups of species like dogs and cats. That means that the DNA sequences from these separately created "kinds" would be "independent observations" since they are separately created.

OTOH, if evolution is correct, then species across all taxa are related thru common ancestors. The DNA sequences would be interrelated by the historical connections of common ancestors.

What do the results show? Evolution is correct and creationism is wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

Im suggesting these early hominids you are talking about were actually human.

You mean H. sapiens? Anthropologists now call any species in the genus "Homo" "human".

I know there is a fair amount of erectus fossils discovered.I understand that theres a big variation in the size of fossils discovered that go under the erectus banner,however that could include individuals with disease hence the differing appearances.

Not that big. BTW, you do know that "erectus" is now used for the fossils from SE Asia, right? The fossils from Africa are "ergastor" and the ones from China "pekingsensis". From all of these there are enough individuals to get enough measurements to plot all the variables: cc, size and shape of teeth, size and shape of long bones, shape of skull, eyeridges, etc. All of these show bell-shaped curves, which they should. We can compare them to the bell-shaped curves for H. sapiens and each other. The curves are statistically significantly different. What's more, for some of the curves -- such as brain volume -- the curves do not overlap at all. This indicates different species.

Well you had me until you mentioned habilis and mean group size.There wasnt many habilis fossils discovered and some were in such a mess,i would suggest putting a skeleton together would require a particular skill with plaster of paris.

By now, there are quite a few habilis fossils. Not only can we put together a skeleton, but over a dozen at this point. Remember, people keep finding more and more fossils. You can't go back to just the first papers, but must look at the ongoing discovery of more individuals.

 

[lucaspa]

I like discussing human evolution especially the fossil record.

Oh good. Perhaps you'd like to talk about these transitional individuals that link A. afarensis to H. habilis to H. ergastor (erectus) to H. sapiens:

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. Fossil Hominids: Skull D2700
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70. F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri Oldest <i>Homo Sapiens</i> Fossils Found, Experts Say
Press Backgrounder: First homo sapiens
actual paper: Access : Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia : Nature
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

 

[lucaspa]

For your information: ALL fossils are transitional. All life evolves.

Sorry, but I need to correct you here. You are using "evolves" as "changes to a new species." Yes, all life is subject to evolution, but not all life changes to a new species. Remember purifying selection, stasis, and extinction.

Not all populations are changing to a new species. Once on a fitness peak, populations do not change unless the environment changes. Many times, even if the environment does change, there is no longer the variation in the population to respond to the change and the population (species) becomes extinct.

Also, once a population has grown very large -- into the millions of individuals -- it becomes very difficult for the population to change. It takes a long time (in generations) for a new allele to become fixed simply because the population is so large. So, as Gould and Eldredge noted, phyletic gradualism does not happen very often. Many species are evolutionary dead ends and will become extinct, leaving no descendents.

So, many fossils represent those large, static populations. They are not transitional to anything, but destined for extinction.

That said, there are many, many transitional series of individuals in the fossil record. So many, in fact, that they are often no longer reported because it is not "new", and journals publish new knowledge, not more and more examples of what is already known:

"In many instances, transitional individuals exist but are not reported explicitly as evolutionary lineages, for several reasons. Fully documenting such complete sequences is rather expensive in both research effort and publication cost; thus, many remain unpublished (Berry & Boucot, 1970, p 30-3`). Moreover, the practicing paleontologist sees little need to repeatedly reprove well-established concepts, especially when his primary concern is with other matters such as biostratigraphic dating (Berry, 1960, p 9)." Cuffey, R.J in Science and Creationsim pg 265.

 

[Cassiterides]

The decepitive out of context quote of Colin Patterson is old news in this debate
Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.''

Note: This is a full quote, nothing has been taken out of context, altered, twisted or misused.

Let us now leave Dr. Colin Patterson in London, and go to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.

It is one of the largest and oldest natural history museums in America—and probably in the world, and houses 20 percent of all fossil species known. Having had opportunity to carefully study these materials for years, Dr. David Raup the leading paleontologist at this Field Museum, is in a position to speak with authority. He begins a key article summarizing what the fossil evidence reveals by saying:

"Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

- David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

We will now leave Chicago and journey to one of the largest museums in the nation, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where Dr. Niles Eldredge is in charge of its massive fossil collection.

While attending a science writers’ convention in Gatlinburg, Tennessee in November 1978, Dr. Eldridge was asked by a reporter for evidence from the fossil record of transitional changes from one species to another. A report of his reply was printed shortly afterward in the Los Angeles Times:

"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."

—Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

Dr. *Patterson, *Raup, and *Eldredge spent a lifetime in fossil analysis before giving the above statements. Together, they have been in charge of at least 50 percent of the major fossil collections of the world. They have the evidence, they know the evidence, they work with it day after day. Figuratively, they sit on top of the largest pile of fossil bones in the world! They know what they are talking about:

Their conclusion: "There are no transitional forms."

Does this explain why evolutionists have committed fraud after fraud to prove their worthless theory?

YouTube - PROVEN! LIES - DECEIT - FRAUD - The Dilemma of Modern Evolution!

 

[Gracchus]

Cassiterides still doesn't get it.

If the fossil record were to vanish entirely, there would still be evidence for evolution. There is developmental biology, and geographical biology, and genetics. There is also the fact that evolution has been observed in the laboratory and in the field.

As it happens, we do have a fossil record that, incomplete as it is, supports evolution.

Still, I have learned that few creationists are interested in evidence, or even in investigating their holy book. To admit any doubt would be fatal to their faith. If God himself were to come out in support of evolution, they would, as one poster boy admitted, tell God to "take a hike."

 

[Split Rock]

For anyone interested:

Stephen Jay Gould Says There Are No Transitional Fossils?
At times it can seem that the claim that Stephen Jay Gould says there are no transitional fossils is omnipresent in creationist literature. It is certainly a widespread claim and it not unusual to find creationists who believe that Gould makes this claim.

Lets let Dr. Gould speak for what his views are. In his &#8220;Evolution as Fact and Theory&#8221; published in the May 1981 issue of Discover reprinted in his Hen&#8217;s Teeth and Horse&#8217;s Toes he wrote:

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists&#8212;whether though design or stupidity, I do not know&#8212;as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled &#8220;Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax&#8221; states: &#8220;The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge&#8230;are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.&#8221;
S.J. Gould and transitional fossils

 

[Army of Juan]

Do you have a quote that's not over 30 years old?

Regardless of all these quotes, the fact of the matter is you've been giving list of transistional fossils so they do exist. The people you quoted where simply wrong at the time and I'm sure today they would retract those statements (and I believe some have already done that).

Quotes are not evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

It is one of the largest and oldest natural history museums in America&#8212;and probably in the world, and houses 20 percent of all fossil species known. Having had opportunity to carefully study these materials for years, Dr. David Raup the leading paleontologist at this Field Museum, is in a position to speak with authority. ...

- David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

Then you had better read "The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" by Raup and can be found, among other places, as Chapter 9, pages 147-162 in Scientists Confront Creationism edited by Laurie R. Godfrey, 1983.

Conclusion: "one must argue that the fossil record is compatible with the predictions of evolutionary theory."

While attending a science writers&#8217; convention in Gatlinburg, Tennessee in November 1978, Dr. Eldridge was asked by a reporter for evidence from the fossil record of transitional changes from one species to another. A report of his reply was printed shortly afterward in the Los Angeles Times:

"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to &#8216;gaps&#8217; in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."

&#8212;Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

This one is a misquote. The paper must have gotten it wrong. If you look at what Eldredge wrote 6 years previously, A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972, Eldredge does list transitionals.

Their conclusion: "There are no transitional forms."

No, this is the creationist distortion of what they said.

Does this explain why evolutionists have committed fraud after fraud to prove their worthless theory?

It explains the fraud after fraud creationists perpetrate, including trying to get people to say things contradicted by their own data and their own words.

YouTube

You are seriously using a YouTube video as a reliable source? No one checks these things to be sure the person is telling the truth. There is no more truth in them than in your series of misquotes.

Why don't you address the papers I posted listing and documenting transitional fossils. And that is only one type of transitional fossil, the most demanding.

 

[lucaspa]

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level,"

Notice what I bolded. "Generally" does not mean always. There are such transitional forms between species. Even one such sequence falsifies creationism but, shhh! creationists don't want you to know that.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least &#8216;show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.&#8217; I will lay it on the line&#8212;there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.''

Note: This is a full quote, nothing has been taken out of context, altered, twisted or misused.

Actually the bolded part below has been left out

The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds, perhaps yes perhaps no: There is no way of answering the question.

Patterson is correctly pointing out that you can't prove ancestors from fossils.
Here is another quote from Patterson

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes ..."

As Don Lindsay points out there are fossil series where smooth changes can be seen
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

Further your 30 year old quote mine from the debate over punctuated equilibrium is irrelevant to the transitionals you have been shown.

That is all I have time for now. I will address all the lies and distortions in your latest video later if others don't beat me to it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Would someone care to explain the fact of over 22 distinct species of extinct elephants found in the geologic column over the last six million years?

If not transitional, then what?

 

[lucaspa]

If God himself were to come out in support of evolution, they would, as one poster boy admitted, tell God to "take a hike."

And that is one more piece of evidence that creationism/Fundamentalism is not Christian. It would rather stick with its human interpretation of the Bible than God.

You see, I think God Himself did come out in support of evolution. I think the series of transitional individuals linking A. afarensis to H. habilis to H. ergastor (erectus) to H. sapiens is God shouting "I did it by evolution! LOOK!"

 

[tanzanos]

Ah! The path to erudition is not for the faint hearted. It seems that cassiteredes cares not for knowledge but for the dissemination of fraudulent claims and statements!

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Ah! The path to erudition is not for the faint hearted. It seems that cassiteredes cares not for knowledge but for the dissemination of fraudulent claims and statements!

Is this not the tact, ultimately, of all Creationism?

 

[tanzanos]

Sorry, but I need to correct you here. You are using "evolves" as "changes to a new species."

No I do not mean that. Evolution is change, and change can be from minute to drastic. Subtle changes still constitute evolution. Snakes lost their legs over a great length of time while viruses can mutate in a single generation. That the human race is gradually becoming taller and has increasing cranial cavity volume and smaller jaws is in itself evolution. The pygmies of west Africa and the Tutsi of central Africa are good examples of subtle evolutionary changes. Cockroaches that evolve to become immune to pesticides. Humans becoming immune to the particular cold virus they happen to catch! (we would have been immune of the common cold were it not for the pesky viruses mutating constantly).

All fossils are transitional.

 

[Cassiterides]

Why don't you address the papers I posted listing and documenting transitional fossils. And that is only one type of transitional fossil, the most demanding.

The papers you listed were written by evolutionists. Why should i check or read your sources if you refuse all creationist sources?

This is why these debates go nowhere. You ignorantly expect me to check your sources when you refuse mine. It's clear you aren't interested in the other side of the debate, nor do you even bother to look for one second at the creationist evidence. There's no point i waste my time responding to someone who is that ignorant.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no irony more delicious then that of the newly registered poster without any information in his profile, and certainly not his age, condescending to the long-time member on the basis of age.

Oh, my -- where were you every time a newbie showed up out of nowhere and accused me of never-this or never-that, and I had to appeal to my post count to shut him/her up, only to have the old-timers get on me about it?

(Nevermind -- don't bother answering.)